Turn an amateur listing photo into a finished, professional real-estate photo (exposure, color, clarity). Returns 3 variants to pick from. Costs credits from the user's Pixly balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| r2Path | No | R2 object path from an upload ticket (POST /api/v1/uploads) — the alternative to imageUrl when the photo is a local file. | |
| imageUrl | No | Public https URL of the source photo, or a data: URI. Either imageUrl or r2Path is required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds that the tool costs credits from the user's Pixly balance and returns 3 variants to pick from. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema; the description explicitly explains the output (3 variants) and the cost model, covering all essential aspects for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (r2Path and imageUrl), with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool turns an amateur listing photo into a professional real-estate photo, specifying improvements to exposure, color, and clarity. It also mentions returning 3 variants, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like virtual_staging or day_to_night.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (amateur listing photos) and the desired outcome (professional finishes), providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the practical details (credit cost, 3 variants) offer additional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: photo enhancement, decluttering, staging, day/night conversion, sign placement, video creation, uploads, job checking, credit balance, and library listing. Even related tools like cinematic_motion and before_after_reel have clear differences (single image vs. two frames). No genuine overlap exists.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (declutter_photo, enhance_photo, get_job, list_library), but several use noun phrases (cinematic_motion, virtual_staging, before_after_reel, day_to_night). This mixed convention is still readable but not perfectly uniform.
With 13 tools, the server covers a wide range of real-estate media operations without being bloated. Each tool serves a specific need, and the count is well within the typical 3-15 range for a purpose-built server.
The tool surface covers the main workflows: photo enhancement, staging, editing, video creation, uploads, library viewing, job status, and credit management. Minor gaps exist like no delete/update for library items, but these are not critical for the core real-estate editing use case.
